The battered-women typology introduces women’s degree of independence as a factor important in battered-women classification but often ignored in batterer typologies. Making these comparisons raises several questions regarding the focus of future classificatory and typological research on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental factors. Domestic violence continues to be one of the most widespread, harmful, and detrimental family problems throughout the world. Many empirical studies aim to better understand the motivations and characteristics of male batterers in order to design treatment to lessen and eliminate their violent behaviors. To this end, domestic violence research has progressed by examining typologies or categories of male batterers. These typologies extend our understanding of the various subtypes or classifications of batterers, allowing for more targeted interventions and policies that address the particular risks and needs of each subtype. Despite great advancement in understanding of batterer typologies, little work has been done to examine what these typologies mean for battered women and whether battered women can be classified into similar typologies. This article reviews the most common and empirically supported batterer typologies and then compares these typologies to Roberts’ (2007) battered-women typology. The purpose is to examine the consistencies and differences between batterer and battered-women typologies and to discuss implications for providing interventions to both men and women. Table, references